When you watch your team fall apart - coaches' and sport psychologists' perceptions on causes of collective sport team collapse
- Wergin, Vanessa, Mallett, Clifford, Mesagno, Christopher, Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna, Beckmann, Jurgen
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Mallett, Clifford , Mesagno, Christopher , Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna , Beckmann, Jurgen
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10, no. JUN (2019), p. 1-15
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Collective team collapse occurs when multiple players of a sport team experience a sudden and extreme underperformance within a game and are unable to return to their initial performance level. The occurrence of such a team collapse event commonly leads to the loss of the game or championship. A recent study investigated athletes' perceptions of the phenomenon and proposed a process model of causes of collective sport team collapse. The main goal of this study was to apply this process model to the data collected from coaches and sport psychologists. A further goal was to explore differences in perceptions of causes of team collapse among athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists of various professional German sport teams. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate seven coaches' and four sport psychologists' perceptions. Following an abductive approach, a deductive content analysis was used to explore if the data supported the process model of collective sport team collapse. Perceived antecedents and critical events causing team collapse were similar among the three participant groups. Coaches and sport psychologists differed from athletes in their perception of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes of team collapse. Coaches tended to report behavioral factors, such as immobility or the blaming of other players, as critical factors maintaining team collapse. Sport psychologists reported cognitive factors, such as individualization or a lack of accountability between the players, to be relevant for team collapse maintenance. Overall, the data of this study supported the general structure of the process model of collective sport team collapse; however, minor amendments to the temporal cascade of causes of team collapse are introduced. Future research is encouraged to examine this model, to provide guidance to teams, coaches, and sport psychologists in dealing with collective sport team collapse. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01331/full#supplementary-material
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Mallett, Clifford , Mesagno, Christopher , Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna , Beckmann, Jurgen
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 10, no. JUN (2019), p. 1-15
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Collective team collapse occurs when multiple players of a sport team experience a sudden and extreme underperformance within a game and are unable to return to their initial performance level. The occurrence of such a team collapse event commonly leads to the loss of the game or championship. A recent study investigated athletes' perceptions of the phenomenon and proposed a process model of causes of collective sport team collapse. The main goal of this study was to apply this process model to the data collected from coaches and sport psychologists. A further goal was to explore differences in perceptions of causes of team collapse among athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists of various professional German sport teams. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate seven coaches' and four sport psychologists' perceptions. Following an abductive approach, a deductive content analysis was used to explore if the data supported the process model of collective sport team collapse. Perceived antecedents and critical events causing team collapse were similar among the three participant groups. Coaches and sport psychologists differed from athletes in their perception of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes of team collapse. Coaches tended to report behavioral factors, such as immobility or the blaming of other players, as critical factors maintaining team collapse. Sport psychologists reported cognitive factors, such as individualization or a lack of accountability between the players, to be relevant for team collapse maintenance. Overall, the data of this study supported the general structure of the process model of collective sport team collapse; however, minor amendments to the temporal cascade of causes of team collapse are introduced. Future research is encouraged to examine this model, to provide guidance to teams, coaches, and sport psychologists in dealing with collective sport team collapse. The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01331/full#supplementary-material
When suddenly nothing works anymore within a team - Causes of collective sport team collapse
- Wergin, Vanessa, Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna, Mesagno, Christopher, Beckmann, Jurgen
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna , Mesagno, Christopher , Beckmann, Jurgen
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 9, no. NOV (2018), p. 1-14
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Collective team collapse occurs when multiple players of a sport team experience a sudden and extreme underperformance within a game. To date, minimal research has been conducted on the causes of collective team collapse. Thus, goals of this study were to explore perceived causes of collective team collapse in different sports and to define team collapse in contrast to negative momentum. To investigate factors causing and maintaining collective sport team collapse, an inductive, exploratory qualitative analysis of individual interviews was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 athletes of professional German teams of various sports playing in between first and fourth division. Participants were interviewed about a team collapse event they had experienced with their team during the past year. Data were collected and analyzed using a grounded theory methodology. Collective team collapse appeared to be induced by a temporal cascade of causes rather than by single triggers. This cascade included antecedents, which represent factors that make the occurrence of a team collapse more likely; critical events, which include specific events within the game that trigger a team collapse; as well as affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes that foster a maintenance of the collapse. Within this theoretical framework, social factors, such as decreased performance contagion or emotional contagion, played crucial roles in causing a team collapse. These results illustrate that collective team collapse is more than the sum of individual choking of multiple players at the same time. In conclusion, a new definition, differentiating team collapse from negative momentum, is introduced. Furthermore, a process model of causes of collective team collapse is proposed. The results provide first insights into causes of collective collapse in a variety of team sports. The developed model is supposed to help future research to better connect to practice and to support athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists.
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Zimanyi, Zsuzsanna , Mesagno, Christopher , Beckmann, Jurgen
- Date: 2018
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 9, no. NOV (2018), p. 1-14
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Collective team collapse occurs when multiple players of a sport team experience a sudden and extreme underperformance within a game. To date, minimal research has been conducted on the causes of collective team collapse. Thus, goals of this study were to explore perceived causes of collective team collapse in different sports and to define team collapse in contrast to negative momentum. To investigate factors causing and maintaining collective sport team collapse, an inductive, exploratory qualitative analysis of individual interviews was conducted. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 10 athletes of professional German teams of various sports playing in between first and fourth division. Participants were interviewed about a team collapse event they had experienced with their team during the past year. Data were collected and analyzed using a grounded theory methodology. Collective team collapse appeared to be induced by a temporal cascade of causes rather than by single triggers. This cascade included antecedents, which represent factors that make the occurrence of a team collapse more likely; critical events, which include specific events within the game that trigger a team collapse; as well as affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes that foster a maintenance of the collapse. Within this theoretical framework, social factors, such as decreased performance contagion or emotional contagion, played crucial roles in causing a team collapse. These results illustrate that collective team collapse is more than the sum of individual choking of multiple players at the same time. In conclusion, a new definition, differentiating team collapse from negative momentum, is introduced. Furthermore, a process model of causes of collective team collapse is proposed. The results provide first insights into causes of collective collapse in a variety of team sports. The developed model is supposed to help future research to better connect to practice and to support athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists.
Investigating cumulative effects of preperformance routine interventions in beach volleyball serving
- Wergin, Vanessa, Beckmann, Jurgen, Gröpel, Peter, Mesagno, Christopher
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Beckmann, Jurgen , Gröpel, Peter , Mesagno, Christopher
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: PLoS ONE Vol. 15, no. 1 (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Pre-performance routines (PPRs) can be used in certain sports to minimize the effects of choking under pressure. This study aimed to investigate the cumulative effectiveness of PPR interventions on the accuracy of beach volleyball serves. Fifty-four beach volleyball players were randomly assigned to one of three PPR intervention groups or a control group. Participants performed 10 serves at a target on the opposite side of the beach volleyball court (pretest), were educated on a PPR intervention, and then completed 10 serves at the target under pressure that was induced through videotaping and ego-relevant instructions (posttest). The results indicated no difference in post-test serving accuracy among the intervention groups and the wait-list control group and no difference in effectiveness between cumulative and isolated PPR use. A possible explanation may be the inefficiency of the pressure manipulation. However, the null results related to isolated and cumulative PPR use under general (i.e., no pressure) conditions are still an important research finding. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of cumulative and other PPRs in other sports in general and under pressure. © 2020 Wergin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Investigating cumulative effects of preperformance routine interventions in beach volleyball serving
- Authors: Wergin, Vanessa , Beckmann, Jurgen , Gröpel, Peter , Mesagno, Christopher
- Date: 2020
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: PLoS ONE Vol. 15, no. 1 (2020), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Pre-performance routines (PPRs) can be used in certain sports to minimize the effects of choking under pressure. This study aimed to investigate the cumulative effectiveness of PPR interventions on the accuracy of beach volleyball serves. Fifty-four beach volleyball players were randomly assigned to one of three PPR intervention groups or a control group. Participants performed 10 serves at a target on the opposite side of the beach volleyball court (pretest), were educated on a PPR intervention, and then completed 10 serves at the target under pressure that was induced through videotaping and ego-relevant instructions (posttest). The results indicated no difference in post-test serving accuracy among the intervention groups and the wait-list control group and no difference in effectiveness between cumulative and isolated PPR use. A possible explanation may be the inefficiency of the pressure manipulation. However, the null results related to isolated and cumulative PPR use under general (i.e., no pressure) conditions are still an important research finding. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of cumulative and other PPRs in other sports in general and under pressure. © 2020 Wergin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Primed to perform : Comparing different pre-performance routine interventions to improve accuracy in closed, self-paced motor tasks
- Mesagno, Christopher, Beckmann, Jurgen, Wergin, Vanessa, Gröpel, Peter
- Authors: Mesagno, Christopher , Beckmann, Jurgen , Wergin, Vanessa , Gröpel, Peter
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Psychology of Sport and Exercise Vol. 43, no. (2019), p. 73-81
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: Two experimental studies were conducted to test and compare whether different pre-performance routines (i.e., left-hand dynamic handgrip and an extensive routine) can improve (and potentially have a combined effect on) accuracy in closed, self-paced motor tasks. Design/method: Study 1 used a standardised laboratory task to measure motor performance, while Study 2 was a field experiment measuring tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance as outcome variables. Both studies consisted of a pretest phase followed by one or two test phases using a group-specific pre-performance routine (PPR), or control, condition. Results: Results of both studies indicated that the inexperienced students (Study 1) and experienced athletes (Study 2) within the intervention groups were more accurate when using the intervention than a control group (not provided an intervention). Using a combined (i.e., left-hand dynamic handgrip and extensive) PPR may not have additive performance effects. Furthermore, using a PPR intervention did not equate to better in-game performance in Study 2. Conclusions: These studies indicate that the element of left-hand dynamic handgrip as a PPR may be comparable to control groups, but further research is needed to determine if it is comparable to extensive PPR interventions that promote concentration on the task for increased performance generally (and under pressure).
- Authors: Mesagno, Christopher , Beckmann, Jurgen , Wergin, Vanessa , Gröpel, Peter
- Date: 2019
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Psychology of Sport and Exercise Vol. 43, no. (2019), p. 73-81
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: Two experimental studies were conducted to test and compare whether different pre-performance routines (i.e., left-hand dynamic handgrip and an extensive routine) can improve (and potentially have a combined effect on) accuracy in closed, self-paced motor tasks. Design/method: Study 1 used a standardised laboratory task to measure motor performance, while Study 2 was a field experiment measuring tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance as outcome variables. Both studies consisted of a pretest phase followed by one or two test phases using a group-specific pre-performance routine (PPR), or control, condition. Results: Results of both studies indicated that the inexperienced students (Study 1) and experienced athletes (Study 2) within the intervention groups were more accurate when using the intervention than a control group (not provided an intervention). Using a combined (i.e., left-hand dynamic handgrip and extensive) PPR may not have additive performance effects. Furthermore, using a PPR intervention did not equate to better in-game performance in Study 2. Conclusions: These studies indicate that the element of left-hand dynamic handgrip as a PPR may be comparable to control groups, but further research is needed to determine if it is comparable to extensive PPR interventions that promote concentration on the task for increased performance generally (and under pressure).
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »